General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCan we disabuse ourselves of the notion that the only way to beat a republican is to be one?
Every time I read we could never nominate a true populist like Bernie Saunders - because the republicans would destroy him as "a socialist" - I think Great, so we win an election, but keep the parameters of governance firmly cemented in the framework of the right. Whoopee!
It's hard to argue with those who say the country can't afford another republican administration, but I don't see the country thriving on a "not quite as bad" program either. Maybe we need to do something radical for a change. Maybe we need to be brave and promote a real democratic candidate with a real democratic agenda no matter what, even if it means losing one. At least we show the American people which party is honestly interested in shifting the paradigm.
I guarantee if we try to keep this incrementalist bullshit going much longer while the country is falling to pieces, there WILL be a third party. People have had it.
dembotoz
(16,799 posts)Novara
(5,840 posts)I hope I'm wrong, but I think the days of "radical" progressivism are gone. I really hope I'm wrong.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)Now, look at the state of air travel to day...It's been a slow slide ever since. He truly did ruin everything.
Novara
(5,840 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Any time you hear a Democrat talking about "pragmatism", the working class are about to get it in the short and curlies.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)after we lose in 2016?
If you aren't pragmatic you are delusional!
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Suffrage Movement delusional? Sometimes things get so bad, pragmatism doesn't do enough. The 1% are hoarding over half of the world's wealth. Just how bad does it have to get before we say enough is enough? The workers have been beaten down for over 30 years now, ever since Reagan. It has gotten bad enough that little scraps here and there are not enough. It is time to fight for what has been stolen and hoarded by the 1%.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)in every election because it will always, always, be easier to elect a right-leaning candidate who has the stamp of approval of the 1% than it will be to elect a genuine populist who has the spine to stand up for the middle class. If we follow their instincts it will take us somewhere that we don't want to be. How much farther right can the country slide before the ideals of the founders have been completely erased?
I don't know what the correct answer is, but I know that is not it.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)It begins right here in our cities and counties, and then at the state level. Then the federal. The republicans know this. The born-agains know this.
It starts LOCAL!!!
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)it is just a matter of how fast. We are very unlikely to win back the congress in 2016, and HRC will use that as an excuse to be "pragmatic" meaning the country and its laws will continue their rightward move.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Beautiful....
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)next eight years of a republican administration run by the Koch brothers?
Do you have some way to remain happy as the oligarchy becomes firmly entrenched for the rest of your life time? You have a way of dealing with 4 more conservatives on the SCOTUS?
Your remind me of the kid who doesn't get his way so he takes his glove and goes home.
The only way you are going to get what you want is to beat the repubs when ever you can and work step by step to bring about more progressive legislation. Nothing will come of a repub win in 2016.
It amazes me that we call ourselves more enlightened that the right yet you ask the questions you do!
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)and that was done under a democratic administration. Your assurance of a radically better future if a democrat, any democrat, is elected president, falls short of reality.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Geez the " whatever" just doesn't stop.
Obama will veto that bill!
I could not live a life of defeatism as you do.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)You're resigned to float ever more rightward with every "democratic win"...
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I'll bet you have nothing but your fantasies!
Some real true progressive is going to declare and the majority of the country will get behind who ever it is and we will all live happily ever after.
On edit I left out:
Millions and millions of small donations will come in giving this new candidate the billion dollars it will take to win.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 22, 2015, 03:27 PM - Edit history (1)
The Arkansas Democratic Primary of 2010 was a heart breaking eye opener for the Grass Roots and Organized LABOR. We were given a Look Behind the Curtain,
and it wasn't very pretty.
[font size=3]We did EVERYTHING right in Arkansas in 2010.
We did EXACTLY what the White House asked us to do to "give the President Progressives in Congress that would work with him."[/font]
We organized and supported Democratic Lt Governor Bill Halter, the Pro-LABOR/ Pro-Health Care challenger to DINO Obstructionist Blanche Lincoln's Senate seat.
Halter was:
* Polling BETTER against the Republicans in the General,
*was popular in Arkansas in his OWN right,
*had an Up & Running Political machine,
* had a track record of winning elections (Lt. Governor)
*Had the full backing of Organized LABOR and The Grass Roots activists
*was handing Blanche her Anti-LABOR ass
...and we were WINNING!
Guess what happened.
The White House stepped in at the last minute to save Blanche's failing primary campaign with an Oval Office Endorsement of The Wicked Witch that Wrecked the Obama Agenda who was actually campaigning at that time as the one who had killed the Public Option!!!
Adding insult to injury, the White House sent Bill Clinton back to Arkansas on a state-wide Campaign/Fund Raising Tour for Blanche,
focusing on the areas with high Black Populations, and bashing Organized LABOR and "Liberals" at every opportunity.
For those of us who had worked hard to give President Obama Progressive Democrats who would work with him, it was especially difficult to watch his smiling Oval Office Endorsement for DINO Blanche Lincoln which played 24/7 on Arkansas TV the week before the runoff Primary election.
White House steps in to rescue Lincolns Primary Campaign in Arkansas
* Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure.
*Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests.
*The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just dont have the votes for.
<snip>
What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse weve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesnt have 60 votes to pass good legislation, its not Obamas fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face.
Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you dont support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but well support a primary challenger against you. Obamas support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, as The Washington Post documented today:"
<much more>
http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/
After the White House and Party Leadership had spent a truck full of money torpedoing the Primary challenge of a Pro-LABOR Democrat for Lincoln's Senate seat, the Party support for Lincoln evaporated for the General Election, and as EVERYBODY had predicted, Lincoln lost badly giving that Senate seat to a Republican virtually uncontested in the General Election.
Don't you find it "interesting" that the Party Establishment and conservative Power Brokers would spend all that money in a Democratic Primary to make sure that their candidate won, and then leave Their Winner dangling without support in the General Election?
Many Grass Roots Activists working for a better government concluded that the current Democratic Party Leadership preferred to GIVE this Senate Seat to a Big Business Republican rather than taking the risk that a Pro-LABOR Democrat might win it, and it was difficult to argue with them.
This was greatly reinforced by the Insults & Ridicule to LABOR & The Grass Roots from the White House after their Primary "victory" over Organized LABOR & the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary.
When the supporters of Pro-LABOR Lt Gov Bill Halter asked the White House WHY they had chosen to throw their full support behind Lincoln at the last minute, rescuing her failing campaign, the only answer was ridicule and insults.
Ed Schultz sums up my feeling perfectly in the following clip.
http://crooksandliars.com/heather/ed-schultz-if-it-wasnt-labor-barack-obama-
(Please watch the above video from Crooks & Liars)
So what did the White House gain by Beating Down Labor and the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary?
We don't know.
The White House has never responded to our questions with an explanation, only insults.
To date, the White House has refused to answer our questions,
or issue an apology for their taunts and ridicule of Organized LABOR and the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I'm for Bernie this time. We have to start somewhere.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)Hard truths, but good medicine.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)selling out the middle class. I used to tell my daughter we would send her to college. That dream was busted. Now we are spending the few thousands of dollars we do have to send her to community college and she is applying for college loans that will rack up tens of thousands in debt for her so she can go to a university after she is done with community college. And she knows once she gets out of college with that massive debt the income she will earn will be less than a generation ago too. My son has suffered under the Democratic Race to the Top education policy. They try to force him to perform at the same level as his general education peers even though he is in special education. All of the schools in WA state are considered failing because our state legislature refused to tie state standardized testing to teacher evaluation. My husband and son are both on SSDI which I have to wonder how much longer it will be before the pragmatic Democrats will cave to cuts to SSDI that Republicans want to make. I have been defeated by both the Republicans and the Democrats, but I refuse to give up and I refuse to give in and be a pragmatist. I choose to fight. I will fight for what has been stolen from me and from my children.
treestar
(82,383 posts)but were saying this same sort of thing.
0rganism
(23,943 posts)i thought that was still up in the air.
that's one thing you get with the triangulating milquetoast Dem administrations - at least there's some hope they'll do the right thing. if this were a GOP administration, there'd be no question about whether such a law would have their support.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 17, 2015, 06:54 PM - Edit history (1)
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)regardless of who wins the White House, since they are buying the congress.
The country has been a de facto police state since the Patriot Act was passed. When the Democrats controlled all branches of government in 2009, they decided to retain the police state, protect Wall Street and shield war criminals.
That was pretty much game over.
The Democrats will retain the White House in 2016, but since Wall Street will own the candidate, things will continue toward the inevitable conclusion.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Presidency and even if they do they may not have a chance at changing the machine that our government has become, but at least a progressive President would fight and that is what I want. Win or lose I want someone to fight for me and my family and who knows maybe if more of the country joins the fight we can change things. The Labor Movement changed things. The Civil Rights Movement changed things. The Women's Suffrage Movement changed things. Eventually things will get bad enough that people will fight back and we will have another movement. The question is how bad will it get and when will the people fight back? That I cannot answer, but I know I will fight.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The Nineties proved that.
We achieve nothing by campaigning as if we've already lost the argument on the main issues and can do nothing but tinker at the edges of the edges. Tinkering is a waste of time, since small changes are usually worthless.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)In 2006, the American People gave the Democrats large majorities in the House & Senate.
In 2008, the American People gave the Democrats the White House,
and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
AND the White House.
How much good did that do?
*More Free Trade
*A Republican Health Insurance "Plan"
*Wars extended to more sovereign countries.
*Drone Terror Killings
*A Unitary Executive who claimed the power to secretly assassinate ANYONE without Due Process or any oversight what-so-ever.
*Reissuing the Patriot Act
*The NDAA
I could go on, but you get the picture.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Bernie Sanders can't win nationally, but there are plenty of Democrats who can.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Why can't Bernie win? Is it because his politics aren't close enough to the republicans? I'm tired of them setting the tone.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)A self-professed socialist can't win a national election in the US. That doesn't mean you have to "be a Republican" to win. As demonstrated by Obama.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)but he became a huge disappointment when he quickly plugged in to their frames.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)like Elizabeth Warren...
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Elizabeth Warren's policies have evolved to where she is one of the few true liberals out there. Yet when we criticize a Democrat who says his policies make him a moderate Republican you screech that we are "purity testers".
Well, yeah, I guess you are right-- I'm such a "purity tester" that I don't think Democrats should proudly call themselves moderate Republicans.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.
-Nietzsche
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)He is not the right candidate in my opinion.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Seriously, not a good attempt to disrupt even by your standards.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Also, a few of them despise anything to the left of center, so not a surprise there either.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)In order to win with a Progressive candidate, we'd have to take over the DNC with Progressives because it's the DNC who decides who gets to run and who gets the chance to run and who gets to be successful (re: money) when they do run. If you don't get the DNC on board, you're toast because they'll come after you with all their power to make sure you don't win--so the candidate is fighting their own party and the opposing party.
So if you can figure out how to weight the DNC with Progressives that'd be a good place to start. And like I said in the title, it's not going to happen by 2016. So the choice is this; do we, as a party, go Republican Light and make sure the Supreme Court stays balanced (or it tips in our favor) or do we sit this one out and let the Republicans, that are about 1000 times worse than any Democratic "Republican Light" candidate, do what they do best for the next 8 years, which is take this nation backwards both in policy and social issues?
If the actual Republicans win, I would predict an overturning (or a fierce attempt) of Roe v. Wade, I'd guess any rights women have for their own health choices would slowly erode. Any progress made by Obama within the LGBT community would be gone and likely laws outlawing LGBT folk would be put in place. Obamacare would be dismantled. Any positive movement on immigration can be forgotten--just imagine that fence across our borders and how much it'll cost. It'll probably be mandatory for babies to be given guns with their new social security numbers. Christianity would become the de facto "state" religion. Evolution would be stripped from classrooms and replaced with creationism. Climate change would get exponentially worse because any and all EPA regulations they can strip, will be stripped (if they don't close down the EPA entirely). Fracking would happen in everyone's backyard, clean water be damned.
I'm sure I could go on with the list of potential negatives if the real Republicans take over in 2016 but I'm now pretty depressed after this list because I know the reality of politics and if the DNC don't want you to run or win, you won't--the populace be damned.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)The sooner, the better. Neither of the current two seem to have room for progressives.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)I don't think that means he can not win the nominaiton or the White House.
Soicalism has been a whipping boy of American culture for a century and a half. He will have to overcome generations of anti-socialst propaganda. I think he should try.
(If you get a chance, check out the movie "Son of Kong" where they have a anti-socialist scene.)
salib
(2,116 posts)anyone EXCEPT a string populist has ANY chance of winning against the Repug money machine.
Really. Without a true populist, there will never be enough excitement to overcome the juggernaut of money and vote suppression.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Just as I thought Dennis Kucinich was, too. Their message might not be bad and I think a good chunk of the country would be supportive of it - but when you're looking at an election where you need more than 20% of the vote to win, that ideology can certainly become a liability.
The problem with your point is that you're not getting radical change if you lose. Nothing was gained out of McGovern losing to Nixon in 1972 beyond the GOP cementing its lurch to the right and even expanding on that lurch in the 1980s under Reagan. McGovern losing spectacularly to Nixon almost undid everything gained during the Democrats' dominance under the New Deal.
It sounds like a hyperbole - but it's true. His campaign was painted as so extreme that even liberal states went for Nixon.
Bernie wouldn't lose as badly, since the Republicans are far more nuttier today than in the 1970s, plus the electorate is far more divided today than it was back then, but Jeb Bush would beat Bernie Sanders. He's just sane enough to fool 20% of the country into buying his approach. Couple that with the 30% base that will support anyone over a Democrat and you've got a very narrow path to victory and he'll take it.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)"Hillary is absolutely against war, Wall Street, and fracking"
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)fuckin' REC for absolute truth.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... came to that conclusion long ago. Many are doing exactly you suggest. They have decided that their vote is important and won't waste it on another corporate Democrat. The tipping point is at hand.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Look at how the conservative party in Canada has a majority government with 38% of the vote.
Having the left splinter off from the Democratic Party will allow the Republican Party to maintain control in this country, and they might not even have to cheat that much!
Of course, this means they have to keep the Tea Party firmly within the Republican Party, but I believe they will be able to do that. Tea Party members are easily led compared to left-wing individuals.
If that is their agenda (to splinter the left off from the Democratic Party), then many elected Democratic officials simply have to continue to do what they've been doing (catering to Wall Street over Main Street). If the left doesn't organize to change the Democratic Party from within, many will splinter off from the Democratic Party, and this nation will be well and truly fucked. It couldn't work out any nicer for the wealthy assholes amongst us.
** "Wealthy assholes" does not include wealthy individuals who are working to restore some sense of basic economic and social justice in this country.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If we had a parliamentary system a strong left wing third party would benefit the left...But we don't so all it would do is ensure the Republicans control the White House into infinity. Here's how it works. Electoral votes are granted in every state but Nebraska on a winner take all basis, whether the winner gained a majority or plurality of the votes. If the left vote is divided the Republicans could certainly get a plurality in enough states to win the White House. Since House elections and most Senate elections are similar we would end up with same result.
It's simple math...A third party, be it on the left or right, hurts the party closest to it. A strong right wing third party would make purple states blue, blue states bluer, and nominally red states blue. A strong left wing third party would make purple states red, red states even redder, and nominally blue states red.
Look at the 68 and 72 elections when the right wing vote was divided and when it wasn't. In 1968 the right wing vote was splintered between Wallace and Nixon, Nixon received 43% of the vote, Humphrey 42% and George Wallace 14%. In 1972 the right wing is united , there is no right wing alternative (Wallace) and Nixon wins 61% of the vote and carries 49 states.
It could work the other way...The Republicans pick the establishment candidate, Jeb Bush, and The Tea Party refuses to back him and convinces Ted Cruz to run as a Third Party. In that scenario, the right wing vote would be severely divided and I can see Jeb Bush losing very badly.
There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates a two party system but when you look at the practical implications of following it you can see that is exactly what its authors planned.
For better or worse they knew exactly what they they were doing.
treestar
(82,383 posts)there are enough rabid Republicans out there. We learned that from all of the last 3 midterms.
You're not convincing them to be progressives very quickly.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)i.e. One tablespoon of arsenic in your coffee is "not as bad" as two tablespoons.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)call someone who said "we have to topple the one percent
republican lite?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)If their lips are moving they're lying.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)Is she lying when her lips are moving?
Bernie?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Now that she has her huge warchest, and thinks she's a shoe in, she's gabbing campaign finance reform and "toppling the 1%" (lol). Tainted red meat.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)Let me help you out with this - every word in this video is true
CTyankee
(63,902 posts)to the federal courts and the Supreme Court. Since they are LIFE appointments and we have several liberal justices getting very old, this is the deal breaker. I have 3 granddaughters and I can't let their lives be put at risk if we get republican appointed justices that can reverse Roe. I hear the argument that says "they will threaten to get rid of Roe but they won't do it because it takes away their favorite RW pro-life arguments." However, do we want to take a chance that they won't?
sendero
(28,552 posts).... that so many people think death by a thousand cuts (Democrat's economic policy) is preferable to sudden death (Republican's policy).
If we're going to die anyway I'd prefer to get it over with, let the country see the consequences of their choice and begin to rebuild.
That is why I will NEVER vote for a DINO Democrat again.